Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Green energy continues to grow by leaps and bounds, as we
begin the massive undertaking of decarbonizng the global economy. It’s been thought that making the shift from
fossil fuels to clean energy would take generations, but reports released this
week suggest that the writing really is on the wall for fossil energy.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a
report that shows how major Canadian public pension fund managers are losing
money by backing fossil fuel industries (see:“Pension Funds and Fossil Fuels: the Economic Case for Divestment,” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, November 2015).
Clean capitalism research company Corporate Knights also released a
report which concluded that by betting on fossil fuels, some of the world’s
largest pension funds have collectively lost out on $22 billion since 2012 –
the year the divestment movement began (see: “What kind of world do you want to invest in?” Corporate Knights, November 16, 2015).

Back in 2012, 350.org founder Bill McKibben wrote a now
famous piece for Rolling Stone magazine calling on University endowments,
pension trusts and other fund managers to divest their holdings in fossil fuel
companies (see: “Global warming’s terrifying new math,” Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone Magazine, July 19, 2012). McKibben suggested the aims of fossil fuel companies to derive
profit from their resource holdings were incompatible with limiting warming to
just 2 degrees Celsius – the international target established in the 2009
Copenhagen Protocol.

McKibben drew the parallel with the 1980’s divestment
movement aimed at South Africa’s apartheid government, linking fossil fuel
divestment with a moral imperative to stop harming the planet. This moral
imperative was loudly echoed earlier this year by Pope Francis, who alerted all
global citizens and our leaders to the need to be better stewards of the planet
and the global economy.

Many have doubted that a moral case alone would be enough to
motivate financiers to move away from profitable fossil fuel holdings. In the world of high finance, return on
investment often trumps just about every other consideration. But It’s because ‘money talks’ that optimism
is growing for green investment initiatives, due to their high rate of
return. For example, last year’s government
of Ontario $500 million Green Bond option for transit quickly became
oversubscribed with bids totalling $2.5 billion.

As for fossil fuels, investors have numerous reasons to
abandon ship, as green energy infrastructure becomes more competitive with
fossil sources. The latest slump in oil prices has meant that new production
from expensive tar sands projects will be delayed. If the world decides to take real action to hold
warming below 2 degrees Celsius, those delays could become permanent, as the
best available science says as much as 80% of Canada’s proven oil resources
will need to remain safely sequestered in the ground (see: “Canada’s Carbon Liabilities: The Implications for Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets for Financial Markets and Pension Funds,” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, March 2013).

Those proven reserves represent real value to shareholders. If reserves can’t be exploited due to market
pricing condition or climate initiatives (or both), whomever is left holding the
fossil fuel hot potato when the carbon bubble bursts is going to get
burned. And that’s why public pension
fund managers need to make sure their members are safely insulated from the
coming shock by passing on risky, money-losing fossil holdings.

Climate liability is another factor investors are starting
to consider. Will our children hold the
world’s fossil energy companies legally culpable for the damages done to the
planet, in the same way that we’ve made tobacco companies pay for some of the
public health costs attributable to their products? While that may seem an
abstract question right now, pension fund managers who take a longer view of investment
risks should take note.

Divesting from fossil holdings is consistent with the
fiduciary responsibility of investment fund managers. As financial backers increasingly flee bad
investment choices in the fossil energy sector and embrace green economic
initiatives, a decarbonized economy will likely be upon us sooner than we
think.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not
be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and
Canada)

Monday, November 16, 2015

I am writing to you today with regards to the Maley Drive
Widening and Extension project. As you
may know, I have written about this matter publicly through different media,
including my blog (available at www.sudburysteve.ca
– see below).

I have reviewed publicly-available information pertaining to
this project, and I have noted how this project has changed in scope and scale
over time. Based on the information recently provided to Council at its meeting
of November 3, 2015, it appears that the changes made to the Maley Drive Widening
and Extension project (“the project”) have never been approved by Council
through by-law or Resolution. As a
result, the current version of the Maley project which is now proceeding should
be discussed at the Council table and Council should make a decision whether to
proceed with the revised project or not.

History of the
Project – Scope & Scale

According to the 1995 Environmental Assessment, the Maley
Drive project was originally proposed as: a two-lane upgrade to the existing portion of
Maley Drive between Barrydowne and Old Falconbridge Road, and a 4-lane upgraded
road from Old Falconbridge to Road to Flaconbridge Road; the creation of a new
two-lane road between Barrydowne and Lasalle Blvd; and an upgraded to Lasalle
Blvd. rom approximately College Boreal to Frood Road (see page87, “Maley Drive
Extension/Lasalle Blvd. Widening Municipal Class EA Addendum,” Earth Tech
Canada, May 15, 2008).

Further to the City’s review of its transportation system
through the 2005 Transportation Study Report, in 2008, the scope and scale of
the project was expanded to include that section of Lasalle Blvd. between Frood
Road and MR 35 (Elm Street), with that section between Falconbridge Road and
Lasalle Blvd. at College Boreal going to 4 lanes in its entirety.

A brief history of the Maley Drive project before Council is
summarized here:

April 2009: Council adopts a resolution that, “Council
supports and will fund the Maley Drive Extension project, and direst staff to
submit the Maley Drive Extension Project Proposal to the Building Canada Fund”.

May 2009: application to the Building Canada
Fund submitted.

January 2011: via Council Resolution #2011-23,
Council resolves, “that Council confirms that the Maley Drive Extension Project
be identified as the No. 1 priority for Provincial and/or Federal
infrastructure funding as part of the Build Canada program.

August 2012: 3-part phasing of Maley Drive
project proposed.

August 2012: Through resolution CC2012-289,
Council resolves that, “Mayor and staff continue to pursue senior levels of
government for funding to support the entire project and staff prepare
additional applications for phased funding.”

The Project Before
Council

Since August, 2012, the Maley Drive project appears not to
have returned to Council, despite significant changes proposed to scope, scale
and costs. Specifically, the project in
2012, according to the Report prepared jointly by the City of Greater Sudbury
and AECOM, identified a 3-part phased approach to project completion, totalling
$93 million in construction costs along with an additional $36 million in
Associated Costs, for total project costs of $129 million. Timelines for the completion of each phase
were provided to Council in the August 8, 2012 Report prepared by David Shelsted,
Director of Roads and Transportation Services. Timelines for completion of all
3 phases were estimated to be between spring 2013 and fall 2016.

The scope and scale of the Maley Drive project, the phasing
of the project, and the project’s anticipated costs have all changed since the
August 2012 phasing presentation and its endorsement by Council. According to the series of documents
submitted to Council on November 3, 2015, phasing for Maley Drive is now being
considered in two parts, rather than three; and costs appear to have risen to
over $150 million (up from $129 million in 2012).

With regards to phasing, Phase 1 of Maley Drive is now
identified as being that section of Maley between approximately College Boreal
on Lasalle Blvd. to Barrydowne Road, with the existing section of Maley to be “rehabilitated”
between Barrydowne Road and Falconbridge.
It is unclear exactly what “rehabilitation” is to occur, but this “rehabilitation”
will not include upgrading this stretch of Maley to 4 lanes as contemplated in
the 2008 Environmental Assessment Addendum to the 1995 Assessment.

Significant Changes
to the Project - Costs

Phase 1 of the Maley project is estimated to cost $80.1
million, and is intended to be funded by the federal, provincial and municipal
governments at one-third of the costs each, or $26.7 million each. At this time, only the provincial government
has committed the entirety of its 1/3 funding share, contingent upon the
municipality and the federal government providing their one third shares. It is widely rumoured that the federal
government may be about to make a decision regarding its one-third funding of
Maley.

That leaves the City of Greater Sudbury to find its
one-third share of funding. According to
documentation available on the City’s website, the City currently has $12.2
million set aside for our one-third funding, and that options for financing
will be presented to Council with regards to the remainder of the City’s
one-third share ($14.5 million).

Phase 2 of the Maley project will consist of: widening
Lasalle Blvd. between College Boreal and MR 35 (Elm Street); upgrading the
recently rehabilitated section of Maley between Barrydowne and Falconbridge to
4 lanes, along with reconstructing a railway crossing in this area; and,
installing roundabouts on Maley at Lansing, and on the newly built section of
Maley Drive at Montrose. Currently,
costs estimated for Phase 2 total $70 million.
At present, there are no funding commitments from any level of government
for Phase 2.

Revised Maley Drive
Project Needs Council’s Direction

Given that the scope, scale, phasing and costs of the Maley
Drive Extension and Road Widening project have changed significantly since
August 2012 – the last time our Municipal Council affirmed its support for this
project – it appears to me that the current version of the Maley project has
not been one which has received Council’s explicit endorsement.

These changes to scale, scope, and phasing have led to a
much different Maley project than what was originally contemplated by Council
in 2009 at the time of initial requests for funding under Building Canada, and
in 2011 when Council first identified Maley as it’s “No. 1 priority”
project. The phasing of the completion
of the Maley project does not correspond to what was presented to Council in
August, 2012. And the costs of the
current 2-Phase project have increased by approximately $30 million since 2012.

Not only has Council not authorized the phasing approach to
the Maley project, it has not yet identified a means of funding for the
entirety for our 1/3 share of funding for Phase 1 of the project, or how Phase
2 will be funded, if at all.

It is also entirely clear to me that the public at large
have not been informed of what, exactly, the City will be getting for $80.1
million dollars – especially given the fact that at the time of the August 2012
resolution of Council, the Maley project in its entirety (from MR 35 to
Falconbridge Road) was on the table and endorsed for completion by Council
(albeit in 3 phases).

Does Maley Drive Project
Still Make Sense?

Given this information, I believe it is incumbent upon our
Municipal Council to revisit its support for a significantly revised Maley
Drive project – one now consisting of two phases (only one of which has funding
committed). Council should review new
assumptions with regards to whether this phased approach to funding makes
sense, especially given the fact that some of the work scheduled to occur in
Phase 2 will be on that part of the roadway intended to be built at the time of
Phase 1.

Council should ask whether or not it would make more sense
to build the road right the first time, rather than returning to re-do the road
at some point in the future. Council
should also determine whether Phase 1 continues to make sense given that
4-laning of the existing Maley Drive between Barrydowne and Falconbridge, along
with grade-separation to the existing railway crossing, will only occur at some
point in the future, presuming that funding should be available for the
estimated $70 million in costs.

Council may also wish to consider the need for this project
in its entirety, given much of the criticism which has been made in the public
realm with regards to the project, along with the lack of benefits to the City
of Greater Sudbury identified in the recently completed “Cost-Benefit Report”
by AECOM (while monetized benefits for Maley Drive were identified by AECOM,
they almost entirely will accrue only to owners of motorized vehicles, with the
lion’s share going to the trucking industry – no monetized benefits to the
municipality were identified in this report).

Council may also wish to consider whether proceeding with a
road project of this scale based on an Environmental Assessment report prepared
in 1995 and updated in 2008 continues to make sense, as it is probable that
many of the assumptions related to growth and development at these times will
have changed over the past 20 years.

Moving Forward

What is clear is that our municipal Council has never
authorized the Maley Drive Extension and Widening project as it is presently
contemplated. As elected officials I
believe that it is incumbent upon Council to provide – or not provide – a social
license for this project through a further resolution of Council. Indeed, this matter should have returned to
Council some time ago, prior to changes being made to the project’s
phasing. Why Council was not requested
to endorse this revised project is unclear, especially given the resolutions of
Council from 2009, 2011 and 2012.

I sincerely hope that Council brings this revised project
forward for discussion and decision in the very near future – and that the City
keeps the public informed with regards to what, exactly, the Building Canada
funding application for a portion of the Maley Drive project is expected to
cover.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Growth and congestion go hand in hand. The more roads we build, the more congested
they become. But for decades, traffic engineers have told
elected officials and the public that we need bigger, wider and more abundant
roads to ease congestion. After decades
of experimentation, it’s now become quite clear that the more roads we build to
accommodate growth, the more congested our roads become (see: “California’s DOTadmits more roads means more traffic,” the Atlantic CityLab, November 11,
2015).

Building new roads doesn’t come cheap – but you might be
able to justify the initial expense if there is a strong case that the benefit
of having a new road will outweigh the costs.
As with any new infrastructure project, taxpayers will need to derive a
good bang for the buck, usually in multiple ways. A new road can connect two or
more previously unconnected areas to increase their economic interaction. The presence of a new road could open up
additional lands for development – important in areas of high growth. And of course, a new road might help
alleviate congestion, even if just for a little while. New roads are also often touted as providing
an additional level of safety for road users, although this last claim is
almost always dubious, given that most new roads are built to standards which
facilitate a higher level of speed – and that almost always leads to conditions
which are less safe than other alternatives.

Here in Greater Sudbury, the talk of the town is the Maley
Drive Extension. This new road - running
between Municipal Road 35 (Elm Street) in the west and Falconbridge Road in the
east - is to be developed in two phases,
and will come with a price tag of about $130 million. Right now, the City is seeking funding for
Phase 1 of the project, and the Province has promised to chip in 1/3 of Phase
1’s $80.1 million in costs. The federal
government may very well follow suit with a 1/3 share under the Build Canada
fund in the very near future. That will
leave the City to come up with about $16 million more to add to its $10+
million already in the bank to fund our 1/3 share for Phase 1. Phase 2 is estimated to cost about another
$50 million, and it remains unfunded.

For this $130 million, Greater Sudbury will get a road which
will not connect currently unconnected areas to increase economic interaction
(except perhaps for saving ore trucks a couple of minutes of time); will not
open up any new areas to development (see: “Taking a Closer Look at MaleyDrive, Part 3: Expectations for Growth,” Sudbury Steve May, November 12, 2015);
will not alleviate congestion in the long term; and will not increase safety in
any measurable way.

Fighting Congestion

Regarding congestion, we might get lucky with Maley for a
little while because it will essentially be a highway on the fringe of our City
– similar to the under-utilized southeast and southwest by-passes are
today. But if you really want to fight
congestion, there’s just one tried and true method for doing it: don’t
grow. Better yet, contract. But that scenario doesn’t appear to be in the
books for Greater Sudbury – we are expected to grow by 10,500 people over the
next 20 years.

If growth is in you’re future, you’re going to have to take
congestion along with it. There are
things you can do to alleviate that congestion, but studies have shown time and
again that despite what the traffic engineers tell us about building bigger,
wider, more numerous roads, that’s not the answer (see: “Building roads to curecongestion is an exercise in futility,” Tanya Snyder, Property and Environment
Research Centre, undated). If you want
to mitigate against the impacts of congestion, especially while growing (but
not only when growing), you’ve got to get people out of their cars and put them
on buses, on bikes or on their own two feet.

Right now, transit, cycling and walking options are more
akin to a sick joke in Greater Sudbury than they are a viable alternative to
vehicular transportation for most of us.
And yet – the 2010 Sustainable Mobility Plan identified that up to 1/3
of Greater Sudburians do not have access to a car (see: “Sustainable MobilityPlan for the City of Greater Sudbury,” Rainbow Routes Association, June 2010). Although the report’s economic analysis did
not pinpoint who exactly, on an income scale, these car-less people were, I
think it’s fair to suggest that largely these are people who are existing on
lower incomes than the City’s median, and who may be living in poverty.

Who Benefits, Who Pays?

That’s important for a number of reason, but let me just
point out one thing regarding Maley Drive here: the Cost-Benefit report which
identified $11.1 million worth of benefit also says that people who don’t drive
won’t receive more than a few cents of that benefit, period (see page 4 of this
document, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Maley Drive Extension,” AECOM, October 29,
2015). The lion’s share of that benefits
identified by AECOM come from a reduction in vehicular travel time – and if you
don’t own a vehicle, you won’t get the benefit.
And yet people who don’t own car will see their tax money going to pay
for the costs of the project. This
certainly raises some questions about the vertical equity of the Maley project
in my mind – and I hope it does in yours.

The "benefit" of reduced travel time and maintenance costs for vehicle owners/operators described by AECOM can also be called a "subsidy".

Alternative Transportation the Key to Reducing Congestion

Getting back to transit, cycling and walking – what we’re
calling “alternative transportation” (which is funny if you think about it,
because the very first form of transportation was walking – shouldn’t driving a
motorized vehicle be the alternative?
But I digress). We know that if
we’re going to reduce congestion, the best way to do it is to get people
engaged in “alternative transportation”.
And yet we have consistently failed to invest much in the way of time or
treasure in facilitating these forms of transport.

Since we don’t see people in our communities walking, we
presume that there’s no need for sidewalks.
Ditto for bike lanes. And buses,
for that matter. And it’s true: we have
fairly low incidences of alternative transport use in our City. So the perception becomes the reality.
Especially when you factor in the fact that building and maintaining pedestrian
and cycling infrastructure costs money – as does running buses.

Truth is, as recently as the 1970s, are streets were filled with
people walking, especially in the

vibrant downtown part of the City. What happened? Well, suburbia happened – and decision-makers
made driving a government-subsidized activity.
Yes, our governments actually paid people to drive their cars, and gave
hand-outs to rich land developers to build subdivisions which provided people
with a disincentive to walk, ride their bikes or take transit. Folly, you say? Well, we’re still doing it today.

Subsidized Roads

Who pays for roads like Maley Drive? For the most part, taxpayers do. At the municipal level of government, the
revenues which pay for our roads come largely from property taxes and provincial
revenue transfers. Yes, it’s true – user
fees also make up some of those revenues, including taxes collected on
gasoline. But when it comes to roads,
road users are nowhere near paying the full costs of use. Throw free parking into the mix, and it quite
quickly it becomes apparent that society subsidizes road use.

We like to think that government subsidies are going towards
things which make society better for most people. Good roads make life better for everybody,
no? For the drivers who use the roads,
for people who take the bus, for anyone who shops at a grocery store where
goods are trucked in. Clearly, there’s a
public good inherent in roads.

But at the same time, the proliferation of roads has led to
a more sedentary society with contingent higher health-related costs. More roads has led to congestion in our
communities which takes time away from our families, leading to unhappiness. Roads have led to building cost-ineffective
low density suburban communities where the provision of services by governments
isn’t sustainable. And of course roads
have led to a transportation system comprised almost entirely of fossil-fuel
burning motorized vehicles that contribute more to Canada’s greenhouse gas
emissions than any other sector. With
this in mind, it’s difficult to make the case that roads are actually a net
good to the public.

Net Public Good

That’s not to suggest that we shouldn’t build roads. It is, however, to suggest that perhaps its
time we, as a society, began evaluating whether it’s in our public interests to
continue to subsidize the users of our roads to the extent that we’ve been
doing for quite some time now. If a net
public good can’t be demonstrated, why are we continuing to throw tax dollars
at the project? Maybe it’s time for
users to pay more for what they’re using, and to give the rest of us a break.

As taxpayers will be on the hook for the capital and
operating costs of Maley (in other words, all of the costs), whether those
costs are just the $80 million identified in AECOM’s Cost Benefit Report, or
whether they are the approximately $130 million needed to actually complete
Maley from MR 35 to Falconbridge Road, the fact is that all of the
beneficiaries that AECOM has identified will be receiving their benefits in the
form of a subsidy from the government – except those who will benefit from
lower greenhouse gas emissions (which, frankly, is a complete joke. See what Laurentian University Professor of
Economics, Dr. David Robinson, has to say about Maley’s benefits on emissions:
“Maley Drive: How Not to do a Cost / Benefit Analysis,” Economics for Northern
Ontario, November 6, 2015).

Cost Sharing

With Maley Drive, AECOM’s biggest beneficiaries are going to
be the trucking industry. While
motorists will receive a slightly larger share of those costed benefits ($8,464,000
in travel time and vehicle operating cost savings – about 51%), that share will
be distributed among a much larger pool of participants. Truckers will receive about $4,168,000 in
savings, or 49% of the benefit, - but those savings will be split among a
much smaller group – only about 1,000 to 1,500 users a day (and likely much
fewer at peak times – maybe only 100 or so during rush hour). Those are individual trucks, of course. Many of these trucks are owned by just a
small number of operators – so that’s where the benefit will accrue.

Given that the local trucking industry will be receiving about
half of the monetized benefit of the public’s subsidy of Maley Drive, and given
that the remaining benefits are of questionable utility to the public, perhaps
it’s time that the public turned to the beneficiaries to help pay for some of
these costs.

Preposterous, right?
We can’t ask the trucking companies to pay for the Maley Drive
Extension. We can’t ask users of our
roads to pay for their use. Who would
ever think of such a thing? They may do
that in Europe or the United States, or maybe even in Southern Ontario with the
407, but this is Sudbury – we’re different.

Well, actually, we’re not that different after all. As for who would ever think about asking
users to pay for new infrastructure from which they will primarily benefit –
guess what? Greater Sudbury contemplates
doing just that with specific regard to Maley Drive. Or at least we did at one time. The September 2005 City of Greater Sudbury Transportation
Study Report, item #12 on page 112, indicated that funding will be provided
through negotiated cost-sharing agreements with major industries when those
industries benefit from the transportation improvement being proposed. Right now, it’s the 2005 Transportation Study
which is in effect in our City, as the more recent Transportation Master Plan
has yet to be accepted by Council.

Maley - Those Who Benefit Should Pay

So, AECOM produced a Cost-Benefit report which showed that
the trucking industry will receive a significant monetized benefit from the
construction of the Maley Drive Extension.
Given that the City has since 2005 contemplated entering into cost
sharing agreements with major industries where those industries receive a
benefit from a transportation improvement, one can’t help but wonder what the
status of those negotiations might be.
How much are the beneficiaries of Maley chipping in for the costs?
They’re going to receive a benefit – what are they going to pay for that benefit?

Or, despite what’s written in the 2005 Transportation Study
Report, does our City expect that taxpayers alone will be on the hook for this
major infrastructure project which will provide limited benefit to taxpayers,
and a more significant benefit to a narrow set of business users, namely the
trucking industry? Why should taxpayers subsidize this road when the identified benefits to the community will be marginal compared to costs - and probably non-existent when you factor in opportunity costs (what we'll be missing out on doing because we're paying for the Maley folly).

Greater Sudbury - Future Development

Some believe that Maley Drive may be the lynchpin for other
new roads, such as widening MR 35 to Chelmsford and building the Barrydowne
Expressway from New Sudbury to Hanmer.
In these grand visions, a multitude of new lane kilometers will open up
the Valley (East and West) to new residential, commercial and industrial
development.

Unfortunately, that development just isn’t going to
come. With enough lands already set
aside to

meet our development needs for half a century, we don’t need to build
more roads to facilitate new development.
Yes, the outlying areas of the City will grow – in fact, the Hemson
Consulting report forecasts that those areas will continue to grow through to
2036 at the same rate that they’ve been growing, and approximately two thirds
of new residents will reside outside of the former City of Sudbury. But in terms of real numbers, we are talking
about just 10,500 people – and only several thousand new households. These aren’t big numbers, and they can easily
be accommodated on lands already set aside for development in both the former
City of Sudbury and in the outlying areas.
The presence or lack of presence of Maley Drive will not change a thing.

However, should we really expect two thirds of new residential
growth to 2036 to occur outside of the former City of Sudbury? This assumption
may need to be tested, although I understand why Hemson has included it in
their report. If the future was going to
be like the past, then the trend seems a logical one. But the future isn’t going to be like the
past – we know that. As we become even
more concerned about the costs of development, are we going to continue to
subsidize a suburban built form?

Prosperity: Getting Prices Right

We would be wise to take a closer look at where the lion’s
share of anticipated growth in our City should be occurring – with an eye to
making our City more livable while simultaneously keeping our collective costs
down. Right now, there’s a prevalent
misunderstand at large in our community in which citizens believe that property
taxes from the outlying areas are subsidizing the former City. This misunderstanding, arising from an
extremely limited discussion around area rating back at the time of
amalgamation, has led to considerable resentment from those living in the
outlying areas.

At the time of amalgamation, it was decided that property
taxes would be area rated depending upon the level of service that parts of the
new City would be receiving for fire protection and transit. At the time, it was recognized that it would
be prohibitively expensive to extend the level of service enjoyed by the former
City of Sudbury to the outlying areas for these two services, and as a result,
a formula was developed whereby outlying area property taxes were – and remain
to this day – lower than those of inner city taxpayers.

Some – mainly those in the outlying areas – have always
believed that this area rating didn’t go far enough, given the perceived lower
level of services that they continue to receive from the City.

Others recognize that the chances are the opposite is
happening: that inner city ratepayers are subsidizing those living in the
outlying areas. This observation is not
based on any specific study of the City of Greater Sudbury, but rather based on
studies from a multitude of areas which compare the costs of suburban and
exurban living to those of urban areas, and which show on per capita basis, the
servicing costs of suburban and exurban living are much higher for
municipalities. So unless Greater
Sudbury is different from just about everywhere else, our reality is that our
municipality experiences higher costs servicing the outlying areas than the
inner city – but taxpayers in the inner city are paying a higher share of taxes
than those in the outlying areas!

This is an example of perverse pricing. And it is examples like this which we can
expect to see turned on their heads going forward into the 21st
Century. Getting the price right is
going to become extremely important to decision-makers.

For Whom The Road is Tolled

For Greater Sudbury, that means that we will likely see a
shift away from the desirability of developing in the outlying areas in
preference to areas within the former City.
With new policies promoting second suites, and smaller, denser and (in
theory) more affordable built form in locations which are transit supportive
and include cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, we can expect the former
City’s predicted share of development will be more than the 1/3 forecast by
Hemson. And this will especially be true
if we end the subsidies for suburbia and move to a user-pay system for
servicing – particularly for roads.

While municipalities in Ontario do not currently have the
authority to institute road tolls (only the province can do this), you can bet
at some point in the not-too-distant future, as part of a larger suite of
municipal revenue-generating powers, cities will get these powers. We often think of tolls as being collected in
person or electronically at a booth or gate of a highway, but there are many
ways in which users of road infrastructure can be made to pay for the actual
costs of their use (see: "We Can't Get There From Here: Why Pricing Congestion is Critical to Beating it," Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, November 2015). New technologies
finding their way into vehicles right now will be able to facilitate the
collection of fees for each lane kilometre driven, and raise and lower those
fees depending on the time of use.

We’re already smart-metering our energy use – one day soon
it may very well be that we’ll have smart meters in our cars as well.

Turning the Future on Its Head

Let’s be clear: this approach to paying for our roads will
turn the current situation on its head, because it will end the subsidy which
road users have enjoyed. By having users
pay for their use, we’ll actually likely decrease congestion, as our roads are
currently experiencing excess demand thanks to the subsidy.

When you pay people to drive, that’s what they’re going to
do. And that’s what we’ve been doing. We
can’t afford to keep doing this – not only is it not equitable, but the “net
public good” which we derive from subsidization is questionable at best, and likely
non-existent (see: “The True Costs of Driving,” the Atlantic, October 25,
2015).

Those looking at Maley being the first in a series of new
roads in our City, ostensibly to fuel suburban growth in the outlying areas,
need to consider what the future is going to be like. The pursuit of a 1950s-style dream of
high-speed roads that open up vast tracts of new land for low-density
single-family homes isn’t in the cards for the future we’re going to have. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen – if our
decision-makers want to make foolish and fiscally ruinous decisions to build
more roads and maintain them over time when none are demonstrably needed, than
it very well could happen.

But if we really want to get our financial house in order,
and maximize our opportunities for prosperity going forward, we have to change
the way that we spend public money. If
we choose to subsidize a project, program or activity, we have to be certain
that we receive a net public benefit from our subsidy. Making the case for new roads, particularly
in a low-growth environment, is one which will fail time and again the test of
net public benefit.

Getting Our House in Order

We here in Greater Sudbury are already going to be facing
numerous, difficult challenges going forward, many as a result of past land use
decisions which created our sprawling City.
As much as we might like, we can’t go back and change time – or wipe the
map clean like you can in Sim City. We’ve
got to live with what we’ve got, and retrofit suburbia as best as we can. But there are a number of things which we
know we must not do – and perpetuating an unsustainable, fiscally unsound built
form has to be at the top of that list. One
of the ways of accomplishing this is to stop new roads that we don’t need.

Maley Drive, like many of the road projects City engineers
have talked about for decades, has no future – or rather, our future should not
have Maley Drive in it. If there
actually is a benefit to be derived from Maley, it’s one which will accrue
almost entirely to as specific industry.
Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill – upwards of $130 million
– for a road that we don’t need and can’t afford, and is in the wrong place for
development which isn’t going to happen anyway.
If the beneficiaries of the road believe that there is value in its
construction, let’s figure out a way to make sure that they are the ones on the
hook for the lion’s share of the costs – either through cost-sharing agreements
as contemplated by the City through the 2005 Transportation Study Report – or through
user fees.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not
be considered consistent with the views and policies of the Green Parties of
Ontario and Canada)

What should be coming increasingly clear now is that the Liberals reallyhave no plan or credibility when it comes to climate change. This talk of "sustainability" is clearly greenwashing - they don't understand the meaning of the word. Stephane Dion of all people should know very well that the tarsands cannot be developed sustainably.

Environmental groups praised Obama's decision today. Of course it was the right one to make, but some of those very same environmental groups urged Canadians to vote for the Liberals in the recent election - or embraced strategic voting initiatives which accomplished the same result. These environmental groups need to take a look at themselves today and ask whether their focus on getting rid of Harper was worth installing a Liberal majority government in his place.

Canada will now waste more time, money and energy pursuing fossil infrastructure thanks to Trudeau and his kinder, gentler Liberal government. Environmental groups that helped elect Trudeau will find themselves on the frontlines opposing his policies. And those pipelines? They're not going to get built - which is the good news - but we are all going to waste our energy, our own scarce personal resources, opposing our new Liberal's government bid to get dirty oil to tidewater and expand the tarsands enterprise.

I had hopes that maybe Mr. Dion would bring some sanity to a Trudeau-led cabinet. I have those hopes no more - that sure didn't take long. To insist that Canada doesn't have a choice as to whether we expand the tarsands is just so offside and unrealistic - I'm not sure what more there is to say about it.

Mr. Dion, Canada does have a choice - and it's one that we must make, and I'd argue we'd be better off making it sooner rather than later. It's time to begin phasing out fossil infrastructure. Building new pipelines to facilitate the growth of the tarsands isn't the answer. We have a choice - we can stop making stupid, wasteful choices, and start making smart ones.

Maybe we'll have to wait four more years for real action on climate change. How long can this go on?

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with those of the Green Parties of Ontario or Canada)

Thursday, November 5, 2015

It’s been a big week in Greater Sudbury for Maley Drive watchers like me. Back in September, our municipal Council asked staff if it could review certain documentation which had previously been brought forward to past Councils which those Councils then used to support prioritizing the Maley Extension as the #1 roads project in the City. Council also asked for a Cost / Benefit analysis of the project.

Today, the Sudbury Star is reporting that Mayor Brian Bigger was “not aware of phase two” and that “he admitted ‘there may be completion to a different length of road construction that would add up to more dollars’" as well as supplemental elements that could drive up the price tag.” (see: "Maley project feasible: Report," the Sudbury Star, November 5, 2015).

In other words, City engineers have cut back on the scale of the project while nobody was looking.

A Brief History of Maley Drive - Scope and Funding

In a blog of mine from earlier this year (see: “Taking a Closer Look at Maley Drive, Part 1: Costs,” Sudbury Steve May, April 21, 2015), one of the things I looked at was how the scale of this project has shrunk in size over time, as costs have risen.

Maley Drive - the 2009 Version

Back in 2009, the City uploaded a pretty cool video of the Maley Ring Road project to YouTube. At that time, a four-laned Maley Drive was planned to link MR 35 (Elm Street) in the west to the intersection of the Kingsway / Highway 17 in the east. However, it was understood that the eastern portion of the ring road – that part from Falconbridge road looping southeast to the Highway 17 by-pass – just wasn’t feasible at present. Instead, funding applications were applied for to senior levels of government only for that portion of Maley between MR 35 and Falconbridge.

Also in 2009, in a report dated April 23 2009, prepared by Greg Clausen, General Manager of Infrastructure Services, Council was urged to submit the Maley Drive Extension project to the federal Building Canada Fund. Successful applications under Building Canada would see costs shared between federal/provincial/municipal governments at a rate of 1/3 each. Total project costs weren’t identified in this report, but the report indicated that the City would be on the hook for $41 million in total – which includes the City’s 1/3 share along with other “ineligible” costs.

Maley in 2011 - Starting to Bloat

On January 12, 2011, Council reconfirmed its commitment to Maley Drive after reviewing a report dated January 6, 2011, prepared by Robert Falcioni, Director of Roads and Transportation Services. In that report, we discover that the total 2009 costs for Maley Drive were estimated to be $115. What’s not clear is whether this amount also included “ineligible costs”. There is no reference to the amount the City applied for through Building Canada.

Maley in 2012 - 3-Part Construction

Fast forward to August 2012. In a resolution of Council numbered CC2012-289, our previous Council reaffirmed its commitment to Maley, and resolved “THAT the Mayor and staff continue to pursue senior levels of government for funding to support the entire project and staff prepare additional applications for phased funding.”

What was the “entire” project in August 2012? Resolution CC2012-289 refers to a report (also included in the previously linked 57-page documents package) dated August 8, 2012, prepared by David Shelsted, Director of Roads and Transportation Services. This August 8th report outlined a project costing $129 million, whose scale consisted of a 4-lane road from MR 35 in the west to Falconbridge Road in the east. That report also identified that the City had been committing funding for the Maley project from the Capital Roads budget since 2008 for its anticipated 1/3 municipal share. At this time, the project was broken down into 3 parts. Part 1 – between MR 35 and Lasalle - $13 million. Part 2 – between Lasalle and Barrydowne - $54 million. Part 3 – from Barrydowne to Falconbridge - $26 million. Together, these 3 parts totalled $93 million. An additional $36 million was set aside for property acquisitions, utility modification/relocation and engineering & design. Total price tag: $129 million.

The report indicated that costs had increased by $15 million since 2009 – but it doesn’t say anything about “ineligible costs”.

Figuring Out What Building Canada Will Fund

The 57-page document bundle tabled to our current Council earlier this week doesn’t include a copy of the application made to Building Canada back in 2009 – but we might be able to deduce that total eligible costs were $80.1 million, based on the provincial commitment to fund its 1/3 share - $26.7 million (see: “Province vows to ‘fulfil’ Maley funding promise,” the Northern Life, December 2, 2014).

Let’s do some quick math. If total eligible costs were $80.1 million in 2009, and the total project costs were $115, that means that “ineligible costs” would have been $34.9 million – call it $40 million. In 2009. What might have those “ineligible costs” have been? Initially, I thought maybe they would have been those additional costs identified in the 2012 report – the $36 million for property acquisitions, utility modification/relocation and engineering & design. The numbers are close – so maybe that’s what they were for.

A lot of those costs would have to do with challenges related to existing infrastructure along Maley between Lansing and Falconbridge, where a rail crossing would need to be upgraded, and where electrical transmission lines and other utilities may need to be relocated. Interestingly, that’s one of the areas now that is being left out of the current Phase 1 project.

$50 Million in Unfunded Costs

It’s reported in the Sudbury Star today that Phase 2 (from MR 35 to College Boreal, and from Lansing to Falconbridge), “is expected to cost at least $50 million, but David Shelsted, the city's roads director, said earlier this year completion of the project could cost millions more.”

Whoa. Hold on a second there. I think it’s fair to say that Greater Sudburians, including our Councils – current and past going back to the one headed by former Mayor John Rodriguez – have been under the impression that the City would be on the hook for just slightly more than our 1/3 share of the funding. Back in 2009 at the time of the Building Canada application, total costs to the City were estimated to be just $41 million – or about $14.3 million more than our 1/3 costs. And that was for a project which ran between MR 35 and Falconbridge.

Maley Drive Dismembered

And now? Well, for the same project between MR 35 and Falconbridge, now split into 2 phases, it looks like the City will be on the hook for our 1/3 share of the Building Canada funding - $26.7 million for Phase 1– PLUS an additional $50 million (or more) for Phase 2.

This doesn’t look to me like what the City has signed up for – or what our previous Councils signed on to. What we’re going to get out of Building Canada is a much smaller project – one which will see Maley extended between Lasalle at College Boreal to Barrydowne, and widened between Barrydowne and somewhere just east of Lansing. At the east and west ends, traffic will merge into one-lane roads. That wasn’t a part of the original plan. At no time in the past has such a stunted plan been considered by Council.

No recommendation has yet been prepared for our current Council’s consideration regarding this stunted Maley Drive project, but certainly the AECOM Cost / Benefit report includes a recommendation that Greater Sudbury pursue the Phase 1 initiative. I expect that Council will be asked in the near future to endorse this scaled-back roads project.

The Environmental Assessment - Still Relevant to a Stunted Project?

Council should be very careful how it proceeds. The Sudbury Star also reports today that the approval of the 2006 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Maley project runs out in 2016, so construction has to begin within the next year. Here’s the problem with that: no doubt the 2006 EA contemplated a more, shall we say, “robust” vision for Maley – and not the stunted stub that we’ll be getting for our money now. Given that the scale of the project has been significantly altered, does that 2006 EA still have any relevance? The assumptions under which it was prepared are not the same as those of the current project. Council ought to take a very close look at the EA and assure itself that the approval remains a good fit.

It’s not just that the ends are being cut off of the project, but certain transportation infrastructure – including roundabouts at Montrose, Barrydowne and Lansing, are being removed from Phase 1. In the currently unfunded Phase 2, the City will go back to those three intersections, tear up what they had previously laid down, and re-engineer them with roundabouts. I understand that if this never happened, it would please a large part of the community – but keep in mind that those roundabouts were being considered for environmental reasons, and to relieve congestion. If you take them out of the project (as is being done), you’ve changed the underlying EA assumptions.

Council: Proceed With Caution - Or Don't Proceed

Ultimately, what is clear is that our Council is going to now be asked to endorse a Maley Drive extension project which was not the same as that which went through the environmental assessment process, the Building Canada application process, and which received support from two previous Councils. Council is going to be asked to approve something new – something smaller and less robust than what has been contemplated at least since 2006. It’s something which will not meet the current expectations of Greater Sudburians, and may not meet the expectations of senior levels of government who were asked to foot the bill for a more complete project. It may not meet the regulatory tests of the Environmental Assessment Act under which a larger project received approval.

Even those in favour of building Maley Drive (of which I do not count myself) ought to urging our Council to proceed here with caution given all of the above. Council could easily find itself in legal hot water with regulators, and in a political mess with project funders and voters.

All for a roads project which – in my opinion – we don’t need and can’t afford, for development which isn’t expected.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

A new report was tabled at Greater Sudbury Council tonight - an economic cost/benefit analysis for the Maley Drive Extension, prepared by AECOM. The report looks at the costs (capital & maintenance) of the project, and compares them to the economic value of certain benefits. On first glance, the report appears to be incredibly selective in what it identifies as a "cost" and as a "benefit". I'm sure I'll undertake a more thorough analysis at some point in the near future, but I wanted to jot down my initial thoughts about this report.

First, let me say this about the scope of the project - it looks like the Phase 1 Maley Drive Extension is shrinking again! According to this report, for $80 million, the new road project will run between Lasalle Blvd. near College Boreal in the west to just east of Lansing - and not all the way over to Falconbridge Road. Likely the project has shrunk again in order to avoid the rail line / electrical transmission issue east of the Lansing intersection. Greater Sudburians should know what it is that we're going to get for our money - and it seems to me that with ever new bit of information, the project just keeps getting smaller (see: "Taking a Closer Look at Maley Drive, Part 1: Costs", Sudbury Steve May, April 21, 2015).

Costs

For AECOM, there are only two costs associated with this project: the $80 million capital cost to build Phase 1, which is to be completed in 2019, and the $170,000 annual winter road maintenance costs. The lifetime of the project is identified as 30 years (which seems very low, given the length of time that other roads have been around). There is a one-time cost of $75,000 for crack sealing, which will be expensed in 2025.

There is no mention of risks that the costs for Phase 1 might actually be higher, thanks to inflation or whatever it is that seems to drive up the price of road projects over time. Further, the assumption that the project will be completed in 2019 seems incredibly optimistic, given that the City won't have its 1/3 share of the capital costs available until 2021 at current rates (with $10.5 million in the bank in 2014, and just $2.3 million being added each year through development charges, unless the City chooses to raid the reserves to finance this project, our $26.7 million won't be available until 2021, two years after the AECOM estimates the project will be completed).

There is no mention of lost opportunity costs for other transportation projects, and I think this is a huge hole in the report. Even if only the City's 1/3 share was to be made available for other projects, such as transit or the Notre Dame road widening, what sorts of benefits might the City achieve, and how do those benefits compare to those identified here for Maley? Looking at Maley in isolation just isn't acceptable - a real cost/benefit analysis has to consider alternatives. Certainly a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change mandated environmental assessment process requires an assessment of project alternatives - why hasn't this cost/benefit analysis considered them as well?

AECOM is clear in the preface to the report that its scope was dependent on direction given to it from the City. So if the opportunity costs from viable alternatives haven't been figured into the equation, it's likely because AECOM was never asked to look at them. Again, that's just not acceptable when we're talking about a major piece of infrastructure with $80 million worth of capital costs.

About Those Benefits

AECOM looked at a number of benefits, 3 of which it was able to monetize. The first has to do with a savings in Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT); the second has to do with the operating costs which vehicles can expect to save as a result of fewer hours spent in travel; the third has to do with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which can be saved by vehicles spending less time on the road. Let's look at each of these quickly.

AECOM used traffic modelling based on growth assumptions, likely from the Transportation Master Plan which is still under review. Let's assume that these models are fine - I'm certainly not in a position to question them, not being a traffic engineer. The draft TMP is at least based on a realistic growth projection of around 10,000 people over 20 years, so there's that.

Time is Money

AECOM estimates that at peak hours, 457 vehicle hours of travel will be saved. What, exactly, does that mean? It looks like that if there were 457 vehicles on the road during the peak hour, they'd each save 1 hour's worth of travel time thanks to Maley. 914 vehicles would save a half hour. 1,828 vehicles would save 15 minutes.

Now, I'm not sure exactly how many vehicles are actually on the City's roads during peak hours, but let's assume it's 15,000 (which is likely low for a City with a total population of over 165,000). How much would each vehicle save in terms of travel time thanks to Maley? That's about 1 minute and 40 seconds during peak hours. Less than two minutes, anyway.

Well, whatever it is, the amount isn't negligible, and according to AECOM, it can be monetized over a year. AECOM estimates that one hour of travel time is worth $16 for each personal vehicle and $75 for cars. They've got a methodology to justify this, so again, let's take AECOM's numbers as given.

AECOM estimates a total annual benefit of $11.1 million per year in terms of time saved. But time saved for whom? Well, some of that will be time saved for the trucking industry (almost $4 million annually). The rest will be those few minutes a day saved by the travelling public - or at least, that portion of the travelling public which uses personal automobiles (remember: the draft TMP doesn't look at modal splits for transit/alternative transportation, such as cycling, walking. It just counts cars).

A couple of minutes a day for car users works out to over $7 million a year at $16 an hour. But how much of that will individuals really save?

AECOM acknowledges that their report doesn't build in any assumptions with regards to changes in modal split (likely because the TMP doesn't either) between now and 2048 - and again, that's just not realistic, given what we know about the downward trend of car ownership. Modal split for transit in this community has nearly doubled since data for the first TMP was collected in 2003 - there's no good reason to presume that there won't be additional changes over the next 30+ years.

Vehicle Operating Savings

Next, the report looks at how much vehicle operators can save based on reduced time on the road. Wear and tear is minimized when cars are parked safely in driveways rather than when they're idling in traffic - so clearly there can be real savings from those 457 less hours on the road at peak times. AECOM estimates the operating savings for motorists to be $1.15 million for cars and an additional $360,000 for trucks - not huge, but not negligible. Divided by the total number of drivers (let's again use 15,000 for the sake or argument), that's almost $77 a year, or about 32 cents a business day.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This one is of personal interest to me. AECOM estimates a savings of $218,000 per year. It arrives at that figure by estimating fuel savings, and identifying how much carbon pollution would be saved as a result of fewer kilometers being traveled.

Finally, it put a price on carbon pollution. This is where it gets really interesting. AECOM estimates a price on carbon of $88.5 per metric tonne. If you're not familiar with carbon pricing, let me put that figure into perspective. Right now in British Columbia, after 7 years of a rising carbon tax, the per tonne price of carbon pollution is just $30 per tonne. In the recent federal election, the Green Party of Canada had the most aggressive carbon pricing scheme of any federal party - it wanted to see a per tonne price of $30 per tonne.

It is true that most economists believe that the price of carbon should rise to around $200 per tonne by 2030 if we are going to hold global warming at 2 degrees Celsius. That's considerably higher than the per tonne price AECOM uses for a period much shorter than the 30-year life of Maley Drive. But is it realistic? As somebody concerned about the climate crisis, I certainly hope that it may be, but here's the kicker; if carbon is priced at $88.5 per tonne or $200 per tonne, when does that price start to have an impact on lifestyle choices - like driving personal vehicles?

Let's do some quick math here. Wikipedia tells me that B.C.'s $30 per tonne carbon tax adds 7.2 cents per litre at the pumps (see: "British Columbia carbon tax," Wikipedia), so a carbon price of $88.5 per tonne represents about an additional per Litre charge on gasoline of about 20.5 cents. Would that additional cost be enough to incent some drivers to leave their cars at home in favour of other modes of transportation?

Not according to the AECOM study, anyway - it assumes a constant number of drivers over time.

Economic Activity and Safety

AECOM indicates that the intent of the Maley Drive Extension is to "alleviate traffic congestion and promote economic activity while improving safety." And yet AECOM's own cost/benefit analysis looked only at one of these factors: traffic congestion. The costs and benefits of economic activity and safety are unknown, unassessed. A lot of those potential costs would be opportunity costs for unimplemented projects which might generate more economic activity (think here how bike lanes and walkability increase economic activity along cycling/pedestrian routes) and safety (slowing traffic with congestion rather than increasing its rate of flow - there is a direct correlation between a higher incidence of dangerous collisions and speed - if safety is the issue, Maley isn't going to help, according to AECOM's analysis).

Oh, and a quick word about congestion - traffic models throughout North America continue to under compensate for congestion. When new roads get built, they generally lead to higher levels of congestion. I'm not a traffic engineer, but there is a great deal of work which looks at this activity - whether Greater Sudbury might be unique among North American cities which buck this trend, I just can't say - but we do have a lot of roads here already, and people seem to complain about congestion. Does that mean that we don't have enough roads, or that we've made it so that if you want to get around, you've got little choice but to drive? With that in mind, how will Maley really help ease congestion?

Analysis

The most significant problem with AECOM's Cost/Benefit analysis of a shrunken Maley Drive Extension is the lack of assessment related to alternatives. Using AECOM's approach, I suspect that the addition of any new road infrastructure would likely reveal a net benefit due to lower vehicle hours traveled versus capital costs (unless those capital costs were incredibly high due to site-related issues, that is - things like rail lines or electrical transmission lines being in the way - but I digress).

For a similar investment in, say, the Barrydowne Extension, would there be a larger net benefit identified? Barrydowne's costs might be a little higher than Maley (but then again, maybe not, as Maley's costs/scope keeps changing) - but if we're going to blow $80 to $100 million on a new road, let's make sure we can get the biggest bang for our bucks. Maybe that's Barrydowne. Maybe it's widening MR 35, or MR 80. Both of those are identified in the draft Transportation Master Plan as municipal priorities - where is the cost/benefit analysis for these (and other) road projects which we can compare this one to?

Further, what about investing in transit or cycling and pedestrian infrastructure? Seems to me that this sort of cost/benefit analysis would almost be impossible to undertake if one was interested in evaluating those alternatives, mainly because data for these types of trips haven't been entered into Greater Sudbury's transportation models, which only look at cars.

Oh, and about those cars; let's be clear here - besides the benefits from a reduction to greenhouse gas emissions, the net benefits to Greater Sudbury are primarily accrued by motorized vehicle owners/operators - cars & trucks. The Sustainability Master Plan identified that 1/3 of Greater Sudburians don't have access to personal vehicles when it comes to making travel choices. That means 1/3 of the traveling population won't receive any benefit from Maley at all - or at least none that was assessed by AECOM. So only a certain segment of the population will receive these direct benefits.

The costs, however, will be borne by taxpayers, who receive no benefit whatsoever. Unless they own vehicles, of course. Vehicles which travel at peak hours. As an example, my family owns one vehicle, but it's not usually traveling during rush hour. We're a family of 5 - we'll get no benefit from Maley, but our property taxes will nevertheless be used to maintain this new road.

The study didn't look at other ways of maximizing benefits, either - such as the imposition of road pricing through tolls or HOT lanes (which might be difficult to implement given that Maley is intended to be a two-lane road). Sure, right now, municipalities don't have the ability to levy tolls. But there may be other ways to leverage funds - certainly the 2005 Master Transportation Plan indicated that the City should explore financing options for Maley from those who will benefit most, presumably the trucking industry. Looks to me like none of those options were explored - or if they were, they've been left out of the benefits column because they've all failed.

When the Benefits Outweigh the Costs...

AECOM concludes that since their analysis shows that the benefits of Maley outweigh the costs, there's no good reason not to pay the price and build the road. But AECOM failed to look at the costs/benefits of building this road versus legitimate transportation infrastructure alternatives, some of which are roads projects which have been prioritized for the City almost as long as Maley. An assessment which fails to look at alternatives is, frankly, not very useful. It provides a single snapshot, rather than looking at the big picture - something which I thought transportation engineers were supposed to do.

Further, since the primary beneficiaries will be vehicle owners/operators, and the costs borne by property taxpayers, developers and federal & provincial taxpayers, it seems that it's quite premature to conclude that the net benefits will accrue to "Greater Sudburians" - which AECOM does. Again, the opportunity costs of assessing alternatives would have been valuable in looking at whether Maley makes sense.

If this were the only piece of infrastructure that Greater Sudbury could build, AECOM makes a decent, if somewhat flawed case, of the economic value of costs vs. benefits. But we have options in our community - and those options might prove to be better alternatives than Maley. Our problem is that we've not looked at the costs and benefits of those other options, so we really have no idea whether Maley makes any sense at all in comparison.

AECOM paints a nice picture, but it's hardly a reflection of reality.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)